# America's love of gas guzzlers



## GURPS

* America's love of gas guzzlers is hampering progress on fuel economy *



One major headwind to fuel economy is Americans’ “seemingly insatiable appetite for trucks,” the analysts said. Trucks’ fuel economy averaged 21 miles per gallon last year, compared with cars at 29 miles per gallon. Six out of 10 new vehicles sold in 2016 were trucks, the highest share since at least 2000, they said. 

Then there’s low penetration for hybrid vehicles, which had a market share of 2.9% last year, down from a peak 3.7% in 2013. Declining gasoline prices in the last couple of years are the most likely cause of falling hybrid share, the Tudor Pickering Holt analysts said.

In one of the last moves of the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency last week reaffirmed fuel-economy goals for the next nine years, calling for cars and trucks to average 36 miles per gallon by 2025. 

“We believe this target will be extremely challenging to meet, as it would potentially require >60% car share and >10% hybrid share, both of which seem unlikely given recent trends,” the analysts said.


----------



## b23hqb

Give me my 2010 F-150 and 1996 Ranger any day for any purpose, just because I can afford it.


----------



## black dog

I have a 2000 F350 CC  8 ft bed dually 4X4 with a 7.3 diesel that gets 11 mpg around town.
 My son drives a 2000 single cab Ranger 4X4 with a 3.0 that also gets 11 mpg around town.  Lol..


----------



## Kyle

To meet that requirement they're going to have to start constructing cars and trucks out of three mill plastic.


----------



## black dog

Kyle said:


> To meet that requirement they're going to have to start constructing cars and trucks out of three mill plastic.



 I believe we should have been commuting from the suburbs to the city's in electric cars from the middle 70's forward. When I was in High School Popular Science Magazine had articles a few times on electric cars with lead acid batteries that could run 60 mph for 100 miles. We have been a foolish country with our fuel resources. 
 Most of our transportation should be electric, CNG or modern diesel, and advance from there.


----------



## Kyle

What kind of driving I've done over the years I can't have a car that stops after 100 miles and has to sit for eight hours to charge back up again. 

Efficiency and range are the two things that hamper the idea of electric cars.

 The other thing that killed the idea  is that they require vast amounts of electricity to charge. When you have every wingnut environmentalist fighting every power plant that gets proposed, their efficacy is doomed.


----------



## vraiblonde

Our gas guzzler also happens to be our house.


----------



## GURPS

vraiblonde said:


> Our gas guzzler also happens to be our house.







black dog said:


> Most of our transportation should be electric, CNG or modern diesel, and advance from there.



and where is this Electric Going To Come From ?
AFAIK - most of the electric still comes Coal Power Plants



Kyle said:


> Efficiency and range are the two things that hamper the idea of electric cars.




Tesla has done a good JOB with this  ...  S 100D - 335 Miles


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Always thought it was funny how Europeans rag on Americans for driving big vehicles that use a lot of gas.  The Europeans I know over here for JSF all bought big ass trucks the first chance they got and love them.


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> I believe we should have been commuting from the suburbs to the city's in electric cars from the middle 70's forward. When I was in High School Popular Science Magazine had articles a few times on electric cars with lead acid batteries that could run 60 mph for 100 miles. We have been a foolish country with our fuel resources.
> Most of our transportation should be electric, CNG or modern diesel, and advance from there.



Why "should" it be electric?  Gasoline provides a great flexibility, power, etc., etc.

Have you seen what it takes to dispose, safely, of lead-acid batteries?  Even the Tesla batteries?  If one is looking to be a good steward of the environment, electric vehicles are the antithesis of a good idea.


----------



## black dog

and where is this Electric Going To Come From ?
AFAIK - most of the electric still comes Coal Power Plants

/QUOTE]

 The efficiency of electric cars far exceed any petroleum combustion engine, about 38% efficiency with combustion is about as good as it gets. With even burning coal or #6 fuel oil to recharge commuters autos we would be far ahead from the inefficient autos and trucks we drive now.  
 Cost per driven mile with electric is far less than a combustion driven auto / truck.
 Now granted for some uses electric just will not work, but to shift to hydrogen or Compressed Natural Gas would cure that.


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> Why "should" it be electric?  Gasoline provides a great flexibility, power, etc., etc.
> 
> Have you seen what it takes to dispose, safely, of lead-acid batteries?  Even the Tesla batteries?  If one is looking to be a good steward of the environment, electric vehicles are the antithesis of a good idea.



 Lead acid batterys are virtually 100% recycled for decades now,
 In the last few years most modern battery's are being recycled except for today's battery cells used in electric cars, trucks but soon they will learn how to recycle them also.
 The big killer with any combustion is you just can't make it more efficient than 38% + - very little, that's as good as it gets. It doesn't matter if it super charged, turbo, diesel, gas, ethanol, propane, CNG or whatever. 
 Modern electric cars are 68 to 72% efficient. 
 And the question about burning coal, you know that the 3 coal burners in Maryland run as efficient as clean coal can run with today's technology, the scrubbers that Mirant installed 5 or 6 years ago do a amazing job cleaning the air. Nothing comes out of the old smokestacks any longer, just steam more or less from the scrubber stacks.


----------



## Gilligan

black dog said:


> but to shift to hydrogen or Compressed Natural Gas would cure that.



The problem with CNG is the storage volume and weight involved. More difficult a problem than propane.  That said, that' the "hot ticket" now for ships and even a couple large high-speed passenger ferries. Those "vehicles" that are are large enough to carry the fuel and can spare the space and weight that entails.  We're involved in a high-speed ferry design that would use CNG to fuel gas turbines, for passenger/care service along the coast of British Columbia.


----------



## black dog

I agree, I'm just saying it's a much better fuel than what we have been using the last 100+ years. For local / commuting we should be burning other fuels that are cleaner in many ways and just as available. 
 I had a CNG stove / oven on my sailboat in 91, at that time there was only maybe 3 marinas that could refill my tanks on the east coast. So I carried 3 thirty pounders, it's silly stupid that the marine industry still tends to use a heavier than air gas in a boat when better lighter than air gas is available. I'm sure you see it all the time.


----------



## Clem72

Kyle said:


> What kind of driving I've done over the years I can't have a car that stops after 100 miles and has to sit for eight hours to charge back up again.



Good thing we already have electric cars that can go 300 miles on a charge and recover 80 percent of that charge in 20 minutes at a charging station (5 minutes for 100 miles, the charge rate is not linear). 

The main issue is cost, and availability of power. If the cost were reasonable I would get one as a second car for around town (maybe a two year old used Bolt will be priced right).  

I actually like the plug-in Hybrid model for now.  Volt was good, though it's performance once the battery has drained is not great (~38MPG I think).  The new Prius Prime can supposedly go around 22 miles on electric, and then gets 53/55 city/hwy when in hybrid mode. Slightly cheaper than a regular Prius do to better tax incentives, but still too expensive in my opinion.  I would have to drive a lot of miles to make up that extra 5k (9k unsubsidized) premium from a similar class traditional gasoline vehicle.


----------



## SamSpade

black dog said:


> I believe we should have been commuting from the suburbs to the city's in electric cars from the middle 70's forward.



I went to high school with a guy whose father owned an early electric car company in Maryland. He drove one of the few cars to school every day.
I got to ride in it - once.

The first thing anyone would have noticed - certainly in the 70's - was as it moved across the school parking lot, I wasn't sure we weren't ROLLING - because it barely made a sound. "'Course not! It's 'lectric" I was told.

But I also noticed how VERY cheaply it was made - most of the dash's devices were broken - the speedo he guessed at, because the cover was gone along with the needle. I wanted to roll down the window, so we pulled over and PULLED THE PLASTIC THING OUT. A small gust of wind and we got pushed to the center of the road - it was then I fully realized what I'd guessed getting into it - this thing doesn't weigh hardly anything.

It had no typical car features. No heat. No real pick up at all. Not even a radio. I don't even remember if it had wipers. And it barely had room for two. It had the feel of a lawnmower with a roof.

And it cost close to the cost of a regular car. To my knowledge, his dad's company disappeared. The technology wasn't there in the 70's and it's still not there to my satisfaction NOW.  The only reason I would ever own an electric car is if I was an empty-nester and never had to drive more than 10-15 miles at a time.


----------



## SamSpade

Here it is -


----------



## black dog

SamSpade said:


> I went to high school with a guy whose father owned an early electric car company in Maryland. He drove one of the few cars to school every day.
> I got to ride in it - once.
> 
> The first thing anyone would have noticed - certainly in the 70's - was as it moved across the school parking lot, I wasn't sure we weren't ROLLING - because it barely made a sound. "'Course not! It's 'lectric" I was told.
> 
> But I also noticed how VERY cheaply it was made - most of the dash's devices were broken - the speedo he guessed at, because the cover was gone along with the needle. I wanted to roll down the window, so we pulled over and PULLED THE PLASTIC THING OUT. A small gust of wind and we got pushed to the center of the road - it was then I fully realized what I'd guessed getting into it - this thing doesn't weigh hardly anything.
> 
> It had no typical car features. No heat. No real pick up at all. Not even a radio. I don't even remember if it had wipers. And it barely had room for two. It had the feel of a lawnmower with a roof.
> 
> And it cost close to the cost of a regular car. To my knowledge, his dad's company disappeared. The technology wasn't there in the 70's and it's still not there to my satisfaction NOW.  The only reason I would ever own an electric car is if I was an empty-nester and never had to drive more than 10-15 miles at a time.



 I understand everything you are saying, I'm a diesel burner of the first degree, but for the average car owner that commutes less that 75 miles one way. It's the Shizzle, the true cost per mile plumets with electric cars. Are you going to drive one on vacation to Florida? Nope, but total electric cars are not designed for that. But they will be. A electric car is all I really need for most of my driving, but like most Americans I drive a 400+ CI diesel because I can. I love hearing it go bong bong bong when it's running. My neighbors hate hearing it start in the winter because it's really loud and sounds like a huge bucket of bolts until it warms up.
 But I am say if diesel had stayed at $ 4.75 a gallon it would have been parked or sold.


----------



## SamSpade

black dog said:


> I understand everything you are saying, I'm a diesel burner of the first degree, but for the average car owner that commutes less that 75 miles one way.



It's not commuting that consumes my miles - it's everything else. If I spend all my time hauling kids around, running errands and such, I can't realistically put an 8 hour charge in between everything - and my work will never have a charging station.

Most of what I use my car for when I am not commuting - I'm hauling stuff. I'm driving my truck over mud, to the dump, hauling mulch, dirt, manure, moving furniture and appliances - it's not for naught my truck is banged up good. I really don't want to find myself out of electric on a cold winter day on the side of a road - and have to walk a few miles for a gallon of electricity.


----------



## Larry Gude

SamSpade said:


> I went to high school with a guy whose father owned an early electric car company in Maryland. He drove one of the few cars to school every day.
> I got to ride in it - once.
> 
> The first thing anyone would have noticed - certainly in the 70's - was as it moved across the school parking lot, I wasn't sure we weren't ROLLING - because it barely made a sound. "'Course not! It's 'lectric" I was told.
> 
> But I also noticed how VERY cheaply it was made - most of the dash's devices were broken - the speedo he guessed at, because the cover was gone along with the needle. I wanted to roll down the window, so we pulled over and PULLED THE PLASTIC THING OUT. A small gust of wind and we got pushed to the center of the road - it was then I fully realized what I'd guessed getting into it - this thing doesn't weigh hardly anything.
> 
> It had no typical car features. No heat. No real pick up at all. Not even a radio. I don't even remember if it had wipers. And it barely had room for two. It had the feel of a lawnmower with a roof.
> 
> And it cost close to the cost of a regular car. To my knowledge, his dad's company disappeared. The technology wasn't there in the 70's and it's still not there to my satisfaction NOW.  The only reason I would ever own an electric car is if I was an empty-nester and never had to drive more than 10-15 miles at a time.



Have you gone for a ride in a Tesla? It would change your mind in an instant. Them things are incredible.


----------



## Kyle

Spent time over the last couple days researching electric vehicles.

found only a couple that had a useful range, more than 120 miles, and looked over charging station availability.

takeaway for me was... still impractical. 

The Tesla everyone is ranting about has a range of 240 miles but the price tag on that thing is over 80k!!!!  

I'll stick with my F150.

You can keep them.


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> Lead acid batterys are virtually 100% recycled for decades now,
> In the last few years most modern battery's are being recycled except for today's battery cells used in electric cars, trucks but soon they will learn how to recycle them also.
> The big killer with any combustion is you just can't make it more efficient than 38% + - very little, that's as good as it gets. It doesn't matter if it super charged, turbo, diesel, gas, ethanol, propane, CNG or whatever.
> Modern electric cars are 68 to 72% efficient.
> And the question about burning coal, you know that the 3 coal burners in Maryland run as efficient as clean coal can run with today's technology, the scrubbers that Mirant installed 5 or 6 years ago do a amazing job cleaning the air. Nothing comes out of the old smokestacks any longer, just steam more or less from the scrubber stacks.



Maybe we're seeing "efficiency" differently.

The best coal plants are almost 33% efficient, just like nukes. (The heat rates listed at the link for 2005 through 2015 are all "the amount of heat required to generate one kWh of electricity", which is about 3412 Btu.  The best year average coal plant was almost 10,350.  3412 Btu for 10,350 is 32.97% efficient).

So, that means (if you're estimate of up to 72% efficient for electric cars) that from coal to road-motion, the best you can expect is about 23.7% of the energy in the coal making your car move.

Now, certainly there are some pretty huge differences in the energy efficiency of gasoline engines.  If we try to do an apples-to-apples comparison, the same chart shows the worst year for petroleum electric plants was 11,000.  3412 gotten from 11,000 is 31%.  That's more than 7% more efficient than the net efficiency of the coal-to-electricity car.

A good, unbiased article on recycling batteries is here.


----------



## black dog

I should have used " clean"  with the coal power plants, and we are getting off the rails here. 
 I stated above that recycling battery's, lead acid and most other battery's except the new generation are near 100% recycled.
 Exide has recycling plants all over the country. I have one 25 miles from me in Muncie, IN. It runs three shifts a day. 
 The facts are simple, electric is here and it's gonna stay here and soon enough it will become the new normal. 
 Electric motors are more efficient with fuel, and if built with quantity parts have virtually no maintenance and will run easily for decades. All the things a combustion engine can't do. 

 I've seen hundreds if not thousands of electric motors in my 20+ years with Otis Elevator that were installed in the late 1800's that have been running 5 or 6 days a week since being installed with nothing more than a biannual greaseing or oil change. 

 And I have said earlier, I'm a happy diesel burner. But like we were told when I was a kid, computers are coming. 
 Electric cars are coming.


----------



## black dog

Kyle said:


> Spent time over the last couple days researching electric vehicles.
> 
> found only a couple that had a useful range, more than 120 miles, and looked over charging station availability.
> 
> takeaway for me was... still impractical.
> 
> The Tesla everyone is ranting about has a range of 240 miles but the price tag on that thing is over 80k!!!!
> 
> I'll stick with my F150.
> 
> You can keep them.



Most folks who commute don't drive anywhere near 120 miles a day round trip. 
 In backwards Indiana we have Companys and factory's that already have installed charging stations in the parking lots for employees to use while working. 
 How often does one rent a gasoline golf cart to play golf ?


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> I should have used " clean"  with the coal power plants, and we are getting off the rails here.



As I say, we were probably using the word "efficiency" differently.  It sounds like you're using it to suggest "amount of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] generated per mile driven", which is a very reasonable argument to make since the claim is that carbon is the problem (though there is no proof of that).

I can't speak to that.  I know that if we just turn water into hydrogen and oxygen and burn that, there's no carbon dioxide generated.  If every car had a small nuclear plant, there's be no carbon generated.  My question wasn't really about efficiency (that was a side discussion).  My question was why we "should" be using electric cars.



> Electric motors are more efficient with fuel, and if built with quantity parts have virtually no maintenance and will run easily for decades. All the things a combustion engine can't do.
> 
> I've seen hundreds if not thousands of electric motors in my 20+ years with Otis Elevator that were installed in the late 1800's that have been running 5 or 6 days a week since being installed with nothing more than a biannual greaseing or oil change.
> 
> And I have said earlier, I'm a happy diesel burner. But like we were told when I was a kid, computers are coming.
> Electric cars are coming.



I believe they're coming.  I don't dispute it.  I just have no idea why.


----------



## This_person

black dog said:


> Most folks who commute don't drive anywhere near 120 miles a day round trip.
> In backwards Indiana we have Companys and factory's that already have installed charging stations in the parking lots for employees to use while working.
> How often does one rent a gasoline golf cart to play golf ?



And, battery technology is getting better and better.  You can thank the submarine community for that - large-scale batteries are needed for exceptionally-quiet running.  The Australian Collins class, and the proposed replacement for that class, are huge drivers in better battery technology.

But, gasoline has the ability to sit in your car the whole time you're at the airport for a two-week vacation, without needing refilled, and start-up and run when you get back.  If you have a full tank (I have a 36 gallon tank), you could drive for hundreds of miles, fill up, and continue for hundreds more.  It provides flexibility, power, and longevity that electric cars just never will.

Imagine a farmer plowing, and needing to stop every few hours for several hours.  Or, to have multiple batteries that are somehow replaceable in an easy way (what would it take, four batteries per tractor to charge and allow for the continuous operations required when bringing in the crops?).  Or, semis - what kind of heat would be generated to pull a 53' trailer full of batteries?

If we all drove smart cars in NYC to get to/from work, electric cars could be a good option.  To have the freedom of flexibility that we do now, electric will never be a viable option.

That's where my question, why "should" we be going to electric comes from.


----------



## black dog

I would tend to believe it has to be a safer alternative to use electric over hydrogen or nuke. Just think about that mess with a  highway pileup. 
I'm a pro nuke guy, but I'm not sure about everyone driving one around. 
There is a GE turbine overhaul plant in Indianapolis that has a small museum in it. It has quite a few turbine cars that they build in the last 40 years. It's neat to see a Chevette with a little turbine under the hood.


----------



## black dog

This_person said:


> And, battery technology is getting better and better.  You can thank the submarine community for that - large-scale batteries are needed for exceptionally-quiet running.  The Australian Collins class, and the proposed replacement for that class, are huge drivers in better battery technology.
> 
> But, gasoline has the ability to sit in your car the whole time you're at the airport for a two-week vacation, without needing refilled, and start-up and run when you get back.  If you have a full tank (I have a 36 gallon tank), you could drive for hundreds of miles, fill up, and continue for hundreds more.  It provides flexibility, power, and longevity that electric cars just never will.
> 
> Imagine a farmer plowing, and needing to stop every few hours for several hours.  Or, to have multiple batteries that are somehow replaceable in an easy way (what would it take, four batteries per tractor to charge and allow for the continuous operations required when bringing in the crops?).  Or, semis - what kind of heat would be generated to pull a 53' trailer full of batteries?
> 
> 
> 
> If we all drove smart cars in NYC to get to/from work, electric cars could be a good option.  To have the freedom of flexibility that we do now, electric will never be a viable option.
> 
> That's where my question, why "should" we be going to electric comes from.




 Yea I understand what you are saying and I have said from the start of this thread the words " commuting " and it doesn't work for everyone. 
 I've stated I drive a diesel F350 it has a 40 gallon tank and a auxillary in the bed that holds 90 gallons. And my commute is about 30 yards. 
 But certainly not everyone drives like you or me. 
How many commute from Waldorf / Brandywine to inside the beltway? How many stay at home folks that have a car drive less than say 200 miles per week?

 To answer your question on why should we?
 For starters operating a electric car runs about 30 to 40% of what combustion costs.


----------



## GURPS

black dog said:


> For starters operating a electric car runs about 30 to 40% of what combustion costs.




I get that ... but the premium you pay for such a car is not cost effective


----------



## Larry Gude

Kyle said:


> The Tesla everyone is ranting about has a range of 240 miles but the price tag on that thing is over 80k!!!!
> 
> I'll stick with my F150.
> 
> You can keep them.



That wasn't the point. Sam was saying that, even among the premium ones he's been in, they felt like junk, toys, not solid. I've been in several Tesla's and they are damn nice.  

If you assume 200,000 miles on the F150 at, what, 18 mpg, and that's being generous, and assuming no major repairs or battery replacement on the Tesla, and that's not unrealistic and soon will be expected, assume 11,000 gallons for the truck at $2.75, that's over $30k. Throw in oil changes at $50 per, 40 over it's life, that's another $2k or so. The gap is closing. 

Assume $.10 kw/h or somewhere between $.03 and .07 per mile to charge the Tesla, that's about $6,000-$14,000. 

So, call it half. And that assumes no home solar panels. Or public arrays.


----------



## black dog

GURPS said:


> I get that ... but the premium you pay for such a car is not cost effective


 
.Like larry stated above, plus electric became popular when fuel went well above 4 bucks a few years ago. Let fuel hit 4 to 5 bucks a gallon and see the cost break over change rapidly again on how fast consumers buy electric.
 There is now over 100,000 on the road now and growing.


----------



## huntr1

black dog said:


> Most folks who commute don't drive anywhere near 120 miles a day round trip.



My current daily commute is 156 miles +/-. Home to Silver Spring 55 miles. Silver Spring to home 55 miles. Home to GMHS to pick up my son from sports practice back to home 46 miles.
My commuter car '12 Focus (30MPG) rolled over 100K miles this morning on the way to work, my "haul the family and our stuff" '97 Suburban (15 MPG) has 180K, kids' car '01 Saturn (28 MPG) 190K, wife's "haul the family and a little stuff" '06 Pilot (18 MPG) 205K.
Find me an electric car that costs <20K and holds 6 adults COMFORTABLY with stuff, and can pull a 6K lb. trailer and I will trade out a vehicle.


----------



## black dog

huntr1 said:


> My current daily commute is 156 miles +/-. Home to Silver Spring 55 miles. Silver Spring to home 55 miles. Home to GMHS to pick up my son from sports practice back to home 46 miles.
> My commuter car '12 Focus (30MPG) rolled over 100K miles this morning on the way to work, my "haul the family and our stuff" '97 Suburban (15 MPG) has 180K, kids' car '01 Saturn (28 MPG) 190K, wife's "haul the family and a little stuff" '06 Pilot (18 MPG) 205K.
> Find me an electric car that costs <20K and holds 6 adults COMFORTABLY with stuff, and can pull a 6K lb. trailer and I will trade out a vehicle.



  And in the next few years you will be replacing a few of those.
 Some of you all have missed the point that I have stated many times in this thread that for the average commuter and the average stay at home parent a electric car would work extremely well, and last longer for far less operating cost per mile.
 At this time with it replace a Suburban or a PU for hauling or towing?  Nope... But eventually it will in some way or another.
 With the base price of a new Suburban at just under 50 grand, alternative's will happen, it's just a matter of time.
 So many here think I'm pro electric are funny, you keep telling me what electrics can't do. If you think electric will not keep advancing I will say this. Just look at the changes in rechargable tools for the tradesman and homeowner in the last twenty years.
 I will say this again, I am a HUGE DIESEL BURNER my normal ride is a 2000 F 350 crew cab 8' bed 7.3 diesel dually. 
 My Hooptie is a 1994 GS 300 Lexus that still gets 27 mpg on the HW. It has 200,000 on the clock.
 But when it croaks, I will definitely look into a electric car to replace it. Not a hybrid, full electric. 
 There's over 100,000 of them on the road right now, America needs to understand the reality of that's where we are headed. 
 Like it or not, it's here to stay. 
 I had a Math teacher in 1972 ( 8th grade ) tell us that if all of us didn't learn something to do with computers, that we would be left behind within our working lifetime.
 Cheers to you Joe Maricini, through that long hair and that VW bus you drove you could see the future.


----------



## GURPS

Larry Gude said:


> If you assume 200,000 miles on the F150 at ....





black dog said:


> .Like larry stated above ...



My 1995 Saturn SC2 cost me $ 2000 10 years ago .... gets 27 to 35 MPG Driving to Hollywood MD  
My 2005 Chrysler Town and Country Walter P Chrysler Signature Touring Ed. cost me $ 2500 last yr, gets 21/22 Driving to Hollywood and has ALL the Creature comforts


I'm sorry your argument doesn't hold water [with me] when I can purchase a Honda Insight or a Prius for $ 2k maybe I'll step up or better yet a Tesla 
[I'll be dead before a used Tesla is in my price range]

last I heard battery pack replacement on an out of warranty Prius was something like 5k - you throw away the car at that point and buy another on.


----------



## GURPS

black dog said:


> ....  for the average commuter and the average stay at home parent a electric car would work extremely well ....





as long as you are young and in good health


----------



## Larry Gude

GURPS said:


> My 1995 Saturn SC2 cost me $ 2000 10 years ago .... gets 27 to 35 MPG Driving to Hollywood MD
> My 2005 Chrysler Town and Country Walter P Chrysler Signature Touring Ed. cost me $ 2500 last yr, gets 21/22 Driving to Hollywood and has ALL the Creature comforts
> 
> 
> I'm sorry your argument doesn't hold water [with me] when I can purchase a Honda Insight or a Prius for $ 2k maybe I'll step up or better yet a Tesla
> [I'll be dead before a used Tesla is in my price range]
> 
> last I heard battery pack replacement on an out of warranty Prius was something like 5k - you throw away the car at that point and buy another on.



For one thing I SPECIFICALLY said Tesla as Sam's comment was he'd seen no electric that impressed him as decent let alone quality. 
For two, I didn't say it was THERE cost wise now. It's not. Which is why I said it's getting there and dog said it WILL get there. 
Lastly, the better Tesla battery is NOW designed for well beyond 200k. 

The best that can be said for a Prius is that it is one of the transitional steps necessary to get from good idea to good reality. In and of itself, it's a niche vehicle. The Tesla, hear, now, in the luxury sedan class, is an absolutely credible choice.


----------



## Clem72

Kyle said:


> The Tesla everyone is ranting about has a range of 240 miles but the price tag on that thing is over 80k!!!!
> 
> I'll stick with my F150.
> 
> You can keep them.



And can do zero to sixty in 2.4 seconds. And automatically park itself in or back out of your garage and come to you. And has a much higher safety rating than your F-150. 

But it can't haul a sheet of plywood.  Sounds like maybe you are not their target audience (and you seem to believe that a vehicle that might be better for 80% of travel and people is crap because it's not better for 100%).


----------



## Clem72

This_person said:


> If we all drove smart cars in NYC to get to/from work, electric cars could be a good option.  To have the freedom of flexibility that we do now, electric will never be a viable option.



Your argument is that electric will never be a good option, because it's not the best option for every circumstance? I am quite sure I am wasting my breath as I don't believe I have ever seen you change your opinion on this forum. About anything. But if there is a market for a mini-van (which I have never owned), or a truck (which I have never owned for personal use), or a Jeep Wrangler (who the feck believes this is a good vehicle for regular daily commutes through town?), or even luxury ($100k+) commuter vehicles, then there is plenty of room for several classes of electric vehicles.


----------



## Larry Gude

Clem72 said:


> And can do zero to sixty in 2.4 seconds. And automatically park itself in or back out of your garage and come to you. And has a much higher safety rating than your F-150.
> 
> But it can't haul a sheet of plywood.  Sounds like maybe you are not their target audience (and you seem to believe that a vehicle that might be better for 80% of travel and people is crap because it's not better for 100%).



Electric is going to massively outperform diesel pick ups...once the politics gets sorted out. Pick ups are the primary profit stream for auto makers and, as such, regulatory hurdles are in place to hold back electrics. You ever wonder why Toyota doesn't have a diesel dually? They do. It's a fantastic truck. They just can't sell it in the US. Same, for now, for electric. It will be NO contest. Power, torque, hell, a truck is perfect for extra weight for bigger batts to provide MORE power.


----------



## Clem72

huntr1 said:


> Find me an electric car that costs <20K and holds 6 adults COMFORTABLY with stuff, and can pull a 6K lb. trailer and I will trade out a vehicle.



Why? Find me a supermodel that wants to have sex with me and I will trade out my wife. Both are equally likely, and equally absurd.


----------



## GWguy

Seems the arguments being made here are that an electric vehicle can't be a suitable primary vehicle because of it's functionality shortcomings, ie can't tow or carry a piece of plywood.

How many of you have more than one vehicle??  Does each vehicle do the same job?  Of course not.  You get a truck if you have tow/haul tasks, a sports car for the weekends, a van for soccer moms, a bike for commuting and just fun.........

Why does an electric vehicle need to be a single replacement vehicle?  Keep your truck for the heavy tasks, get an electric for local errands.  Get used to the idea of an electric vehicle and what it CAN do rather than what it CANNOT do.  I can't carry 10 sheets of sheetrock on my bike but I still have one.  I can't go 0-70 in 4 seconds in my truck, but I have one.

If there were an electric version of a Fiat 124 Spider, it would be in my garage tomorrow.  Just because.


----------



## Larry Gude

GWguy said:


> How many of you have more than one vehicle??  Does each vehicle do the same job?  Of course not.  You get a truck if you have tow/haul tasks, a sports car for the weekends, a van for soccer moms, a bike for commuting and just fun.........
> 
> Why does an electric vehicle need to be a single replacement vehicle?  Keep your truck for the heavy tasks, get an electric for local errands.  Get used to the idea of an electric vehicle and what it CAN do rather than what it CANNOT do.  I can't carry 10 sheets of sheetrock on my bike but I still have one.  I can't go 0-70 in 4 seconds in my truck, but I have one.
> 
> If there were an electric version of a Fiat 124 Spider, it would be in my garage tomorrow.  Just because.




First worlder.


----------



## Gilligan

GWguy said:


> How many of you have more than one vehicle??



I've cut back...I think I'm down to 11 or 12 now. Trying to be green(er).


----------



## Larry Gude

Gilligan said:


> I've cut back...I think I'm down to 11 or 12 now. Trying to be green(er).


----------



## This_person

Clem72 said:


> Your argument is that electric will never be a good option, because it's not the best option for every circumstance? I am quite sure I am wasting my breath as I don't believe I have ever seen you change your opinion on this forum. About anything. But if there is a market for a mini-van (which I have never owned), or a truck (which I have never owned for personal use), or a Jeep Wrangler (who the feck believes this is a good vehicle for regular daily commutes through town?), or even luxury ($100k+) commuter vehicles, then there is plenty of room for several classes of electric vehicles.



Did you read the first sentence of mine you quoted?  Let me paraphrase - given the right circumstances, which impacts an exceptionally small number of people in the country, there could be a good argument for electric cars.

Does the paraphrase help?


----------



## This_person

GWguy said:


> Seems the arguments being made here are that an electric vehicle can't be a suitable primary vehicle because of it's functionality shortcomings, ie can't tow or carry a piece of plywood.



Personally, my argument is that there seems to be no good reason to go that way.  If it is someone's choice, I have no objections, but I don't get it.



> If there were an electric version of a Fiat 124 Spider, it would be in my garage tomorrow.  Just because.



I would bet there is a kit-car out there you could modify.   :shrug:


----------



## GWguy

This_person said:


> I would bet there is a kit-car out there you could modify.   :shrug:



I have enough unfinished projects.  Don't need one more major one...    Although, I've been considering that since the 80's.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

Electric can have its place.  Nothing beats the low end torque of an electric,  trains have been driven by electric motors for decades,  diesel generators provide the electric for them.  

THen there is this http://www.komatsu.com/CompanyInfo/press/2008092415073207171.html
and 
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/worlds-biggest-dump-truck-goes-electric

got to love a dump truck that has to have a stair case on it.


----------



## DEEKAYPEE8569

Clem72 said:


> Your argument is that electric will never be a good option, because it's not the best option for every circumstance? I am quite sure I am wasting my breath as I don't believe I have ever seen you change your opinion on this forum. About anything. But if there is a market for a mini-van (which I have never owned), or a truck (which I have never owned for personal use), or a *Jeep Wrangler* (who the feck believes this is a good vehicle for regular daily commutes through town?), or even luxury ($100k+) commuter vehicles, then there is plenty of room for several classes of electric vehicles.


 Rides like a log wagon.


----------



## SamSpade

GWguy said:


> Seems the arguments being made here are that an electric vehicle can't be a suitable primary vehicle because of it's functionality shortcomings, ie can't tow or carry a piece of plywood.
> 
> How many of you have more than one vehicle??



The overwhelming number of people I know have no more than one vehicle per spouse. Several - like my in-laws - have just one.
I have a few friends who have more but - last time I visited one of them - both of the "extra" vehicles were parked in the same spot, no tags and leaves have accumulated to suggest they haven't moved in years.

MOST people I know buy and use one car for their needs. This is probably what drives the high sale of pickup trucks in this country.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

SamSpade said:


> The overwhelming number of people I know have no more than one vehicle per spouse. Several - like my in-laws - have just one.
> I have a few friends who have more but - last time I visited one of them - both of the "extra" vehicles were parked in the same spot, no tags and leaves have accumulated to suggest they haven't moved in years.
> 
> MOST people I know buy and use one car for their needs. This is probably what drives the high sale of pickup trucks in this country.



Definitely SUV's, when I was buying my first car I sort of needed a truck but wanted a car that four people could ride in (4 door trucks were too expensive for me at that time) so I bought a small SUV that could haul more stuff than a car but had four doors and seating for 5.  

Now I have a truck and a car.  If I had more room I would actually consider something like a Nissan Leaf for my daily driver, and if I could actually fit inside it.


----------



## Kyle

Having been in three car accidents,  over the course of my lifetime, and the fact that I only have one vehicle and no desire to have a second i'll stick with my full-size truck.

The leaf can stay on the tree.


----------

